Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage on
 

The danger of Twitter, Facebook politics

By Wesley Donehue, Special to CNN
updated 7:52 AM EDT, Tue April 24, 2012
Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey listens while President Barack Obama speaks during an online Twitter town hall meeting in 2011.
Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey listens while President Barack Obama speaks during an online Twitter town hall meeting in 2011.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Wesley Donehue: Social media gives people unprecedented ability to see political process
  • He says there's a risk politicians will become too dependent on Twitter, Facebook
  • Compromise, productive bills happen behind closed doors, not transparently, he says
  • Donehue: Politicians have to lead and represent the people, not become slavishly responsive

Editor's note: Wesley Donehue is a Republican Internet consultant who teaches federal and state candidates how best to use new technologies in their campaigns. Wesley was named a GOP Innovator of the Year last year by Campaigns and Elections magazine. He is the CEO of political Internet development and strategy firm Donehue Direct.

(CNN) -- I make a living encouraging politicians and candidates to use social media.

And now I'm going to tell them why it's a bad idea.

Not always, mind you -- social media will, and should, continue to play an important role in our political discourse. But the trend has grown so quickly; I don't know that anyone has really stopped to consider the implications of moment-by-moment, real-time transparency.

Wesley Donehue
Wesley Donehue

I would argue that what we've gotten is a trade-off, and the jury is still out on whether what we've lost is worth more than what we've gained in the process.

So before I go about the process of destroying my company's business model, let's talk about what we've gained with social media.

The Web and social media have created a level of transparency that never before existed in our country.

People sitting at home can research complicated issues with a few clicks of a mouse. Online campaign disclosure databases make pay-for-play politics far more difficult to obfuscate. Instantaneous tweeting of shady government practices -- and the resulting uproar -- means that public bodies are more responsive than ever.

But there's an unintended consequence, too, of over-democratization.

Wait, you ask, how can we have too much democracy?

Well for starters, we don't live in a democracy. We never have, nor should we. We live in a republic, where we elect people to take the tough votes and make the tough decisions for us. And quite honestly, politicians should have some level of flexibility to cast votes that -- gasp -- we might not like, without their every action becoming a referendum via Twitter and Facebook.

A quote sometimes attributed incorrectly to Alexis de Toqueville goes, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Today the same sentiment could be said about the danger of shutting naysayers up on Twitter and Facebook.

Too many politicians aren't voting their conscience, they're voting to placate blog commenters, and that's no way to run government.

Secondly, it's one thing to see the sausage get made. It's another thing entirely to watch the pig get slaughtered.

There's a domino effect when it comes to transparency. In policy making, lots of ideas are thrown out in order to set the good apart from the bad, and in order to stake out a position for compromise.

Cynics would refer to it as "backroom deal-making in a smoke-filled room." But here's the harsh reality -- that's how bills get passed. And it's how every important collaborative effort since the dawn of the written word has been achieved.

After all, do you think the Constitution would have ever been written if Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had Twitter accounts?

Third, government by social media leads to an environment where in every setting a politician has to be "on."

When politicians are hashing out ideas, those ideas can range somewhere between politically untenable and electorally suicidal.

Once they're tweeted -- be it by a journalist or a rival politician -- they become TV ad, direct mail, and attack e-mail fodder.

During the discussion, an idea is thrown out about "What would be the implication of zeroing out funding for popular program X?"

Suddenly, that politician is facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative ads back home, telling his constituents that he "considered" or "proposed" eliminating X.

Two weeks ago, Mitt Romney made a passing reference to eliminating HUD. It won't be long before President Obama's team is cutting ads about Romney "proposing" that we leave millions of Americans homeless.

Factually accurate? Sure, but misleading as hell.

The result is a political discourse that is becoming devoid of real ideas, and instead pared down to the safest of talking points.

And because most politicians draw their own districts to shield against a viable challenge from the opposite party, they are far more susceptible to electoral defeat in the summer than they are in the fall.

Their audience in everything they do is the primary voter, not the swing voter. So the rhetoric throughout the year from both parties is increasingly divisive, increasingly partisan, and increasingly destructive to any kind of progress.

Is any of this a product of social media? No, absolutely not. American politics have been trending this way for decades. But technology has expedited our descent toward a political system devoid of real ideas and bold, controversial thought.

As the use of social media accelerates, it's incumbent upon everyone involved in the political process to make sure its power is used to harness everything good about the American political system, rather than to hasten political trends that are hurting our republic.

Follow us on Twitter: @CNNOpinion

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Wesley Donehue.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 6:10 PM EST, Mon November 24, 2014
If Obama thinks pushing out Hagel will be seen as the housecleaning many have eyed for his national security process, he'll be disappointed, says David Rothkopf.
updated 8:11 AM EST, Tue November 25, 2014
The decision by the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney to announce the Ferguson grand jury decision at night was dangerous, says Jeff Toobin.
updated 3:57 AM EST, Tue November 25, 2014
China's influence in Latin America is nothing new. Beijing has a voracious appetite for natural resources and deep pockets, says Frida Ghitis.
updated 4:51 PM EST, Mon November 24, 2014
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks during a press conference in the capital Tehran on June 14, 2014.
The decision to extend the deadline for talks over Iran's nuclear program doesn't change Tehran's dubious history on the issue, writes Michael Rubin.
updated 2:25 PM EST, Fri November 21, 2014
Maria Cardona says Republicans should appreciate President Obama's executive action on immigration.
updated 7:44 AM EST, Fri November 21, 2014
Van Jones says the Hunger Games is a more sweeping critique of wealth inequality than Elizabeth Warren's speech.
updated 6:29 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
obama immigration
David Gergen: It's deeply troubling to grant legal safe haven to unauthorized immigrants by executive order.
updated 8:34 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
Charles Kaiser recalls a four-hour lunch that offered insight into the famed director's genius.
updated 3:12 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
The plan by President Obama to provide legal status to millions of undocumented adults living in the U.S. leaves Republicans in a political quandary.
updated 10:13 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
Despite criticism from those on the right, Obama's expected immigration plans won't make much difference to deportation numbers, says Ruben Navarette.
updated 8:21 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
As new information and accusers against Bill Cosby are brought to light, we are reminded of an unshakable feature of American life: rape culture.
updated 5:56 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
When black people protest against police violence in Ferguson, Missouri, they're thought of as a "mob."
updated 3:11 PM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Lost in much of the coverage of ISIS brutality is how successful the group has been at attracting other groups, says Peter Bergen.
updated 8:45 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Do recent developments mean that full legalization of pot is inevitable? Not necessarily, but one would hope so, says Jeffrey Miron.
updated 8:19 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
We don't know what Bill Cosby did or did not do, but these allegations should not be easily dismissed, says Leslie Morgan Steiner.
updated 10:19 AM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Does Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas have the influence to bring stability to Jerusalem?
updated 12:59 PM EST, Wed November 19, 2014
Even though there are far fewer people being stopped, does continued use of "broken windows" strategy mean minorities are still the target of undue police enforcement?
updated 9:58 PM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
The truth is, we ran away from the best progressive persuasion voice in our times because the ghost of our country's original sin still haunts us, writes Cornell Belcher.
updated 4:41 PM EST, Tue November 18, 2014
Children living in the Syrian city of Aleppo watch the sky. Not for signs of winter's approach, although the cold winds are already blowing, but for barrel bombs.
updated 8:21 AM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
We're stuck in a kind of Middle East Bermuda Triangle where messy outcomes are more likely than neat solutions, says Aaron David Miller.
updated 7:16 AM EST, Mon November 17, 2014
In the midst of the fight against Islamist rebels seeking to turn the clock back, a Kurdish region in Syria has approved a law ordering equality for women. Take that, ISIS!
updated 11:07 PM EST, Sun November 16, 2014
Ruben Navarrette says President Obama would be justified in acting on his own to limit deportations
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT